FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF PAVEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 11950/16 and 10 others - see appended list)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 28 October 2021.

STRASBOURG

10 December 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Pavel and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

7 . In applications nos. 14450/16 and 25966/16 the Government claimed that the applicants’ complaints regarding their initial detention period had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit.

8. The Court observes that in application no. 14450/16 the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in Codlea Prison ended on 18 July 2006 when he was transferred to another prison facility in respect of which he did not complain. He came back to Codlea Prison in November 2006 (see appended table). The application was lodged with the Court on 12 April 2016, that is more than six months after the end of the first period of his detention in Codlea Prison in 2006.

9. As regards application no. 25966/16, the Court notes that the applicant’s complaint regarding his initial detention in several detention facilities, which ended on 29 January 2010 with his transfer to another facility in respect of which he did not raise any complaint, was lodged with the Court on 5 September 2016, that is, more than six months after the transfer.

10 . Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of applications nos. 14450/16 and 25966/16 were lodged outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

11. The Government also argued that all applicants had lost their victim status for periods of detention specified in the appended table because they had been afforded adequate redress based on Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences for those respective periods of detention.

12. The Court notes that the domestic remedy introduced in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romania and applicable until December 2019 was found to be an effective one in the case of Dîrjan and Ştefan v. Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, §§ 23-33, 15 April 2020). This remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and they were, indeed, afforded adequate redress for certain periods of detention (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants have been released from prison.

13. Therefore, the Court accepts the Government’s objection and finds that these parts of the applications are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

14. Turning to the remaining periods of the applicants’ detention, as specified in the appended table, the Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see MurÅ¡ić , cited above, §§ 122 ‑ 141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149 ‑ 159, 10 January 2012).

15. In the leading case of RezmiveÈ™ and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

16. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

17. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

18. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, RezmiveÈ™ and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

20. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Armen Harutyunyan Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m per inmate

Specific grievances

Domestic compensation awarded (in days)

based on total period calculated domestically

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

11950/16

18/04/2016

Ionel PAVEL

1983Vaslui County Police Station, Iași and Rahova Prisons

27/05/2010 to

24/07/2012

2 years and 1 month and 28 days

1.3 – 2.8 m²

overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, inadequate recreational space

390 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 28/12/2017

3,000

13871/16

05/04/2016

Ion-Marian OANÄ‚

1980Bucharest Police detention facilities no. 5, Bucharest Central Arrest, Jilava, Rahova, Giurgiu Gherla and Slobozia Prisons

29/12/2005 to

24/07/2012

6 years and 6 months and 26 days

1.4 – 2.9 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, no individual bed, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

378 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 19/10/2017

5,000

14450/16

12/04/2016

Zsigmond MOÈšOC

1978Codlea, Mărgineni, Gherla, Miercurea Ciuc and Aiud Prisons

21/11/2006 to

24/07/2012

5 years and 8 months and 4 days

1.5 - 2 m²

overcrowding, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food

456 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 31/10/2018

5,000

15243/16

07/04/2016

Mitică ȘTEFAN

1964Galaţi Prison

09/05/2012 to

24/07/2012

2 months and 16 days

1.6 – 1.8 m²

overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

390 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 28/12/2017

1,000

18276/16

31/05/2016

Aurel ÅžOÅžU

1969Irina Maria Peter

Bucharest

Bacău County Police Station, Bacău, Jilava, Poarta Alba and Focşani Prisons

14/10/2004 to

24/07/2012

7 years and 9 months and 11 days

0.9 - 1.7 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower

378 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 21/11/2017

5,000

18397/16

26/04/2016

Florentin ZAHARIA

1979Irina Maria Peter

Bucharest

Bucharest Central Arrest and Rahova Prison

13/03/2011 to

24/07/2012

1 year and 4 months and 12 days

1.8 - 2.8 m²

overcrowding (save for the period 27/04/2015 – 27/08/2015), lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

432 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 18/09/2018

3,000

24900/16

25/05/2016

Ionel VOLCINSCHI

1971Jilava, Botoşani, Galaţi Prisons

21/11/2001 to

24/07/2012

10 years and 8 months and 4 days

1 - 2.6 m²

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light

408 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 27/03/2018

5,000

25960/16

23/11/2016

Neculai-Colea SURUCEANU

1976Vasile RareÈ™ Biro

Satu Mare

Iaşi County Police Station, Bacău County Police Station, Iaşi, Bacău and Tulcea Prisons

08/01/2007 to

24/07/2012

5 years and 6 months and 17 days

1 - 2 m²

overcrowding

396 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 22/01/2019

5,000

25966/16

05/09/2016

Ioan BANTA

1976Vasile RareÈ™ Biro

Satu Mare

Satu Mare, Baia Mare, Gherla, Oradea Prisons

13/05/2010 to

24/07/2012

2 years and 2 months and 12 days

1.3 - 2.5 m²

overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, inadequate temperature

468 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 21/02/2019

3,000

34671/16

20/07/2016

Gheorghe GHILEAN

1958Irina Maria Peter

Bucharest

Hunedoara County Police Station, Aiud, Gherla Prisons and Dej Prison Hospital

02/03/2005 to

24/07/2012

7 years and 4 months and 23 days

1.5 - 2.8 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, inadequate temperature

372 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 10/07/2018

5,000

49875/16

27/02/2017

Gheorghe PETRE

1984Pavel Abraham

Bucharest

Bucharest police detention facility no. 9, Mărgineni, Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons

05/11/2008 to

24/07/2012

3 years and 8 months and 20 days

0.9 - 2.25 m²

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light

378 days in compensation

for a total period of

detention spent in

inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 14/11/2017

3,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.